Saturday, 8 August 2009

Now, would you like to hear the actual answer my husband gave in the taped interview, or would you like to hear the version that was transcribed by this policeman? What is even more interesting is that the version that was transcribed by the policeman, was a material fact mentioned several times by the judge when she found him guilty in September 2008.

Compare the below answers:

My husband: 'mainly his elbows'

Mr. Policeman: 'I moved his elbows'

You would be forgiven if you did not immediately spot the importance - we didn't until recently.

Mind you we did rather stupidly assume the following:

A policeman would not make errors. I'm not talking just this one error, there are in fact 4 in total.

The prosecution would check the evidence they offer to the Court.

Your defence lawyer would check the case against you and even find the time to listen to your taped interview and check it with the transcripts, seeing as we paid her £1200.00 out of fees of £24,000.00 (yes legal aid).

You see the version of Mr Incompetent Policeman, was just what they needed to find my husband guilty of 'child abuse' as it indicated a deliberate attempt to get to his head and deliver several blows to his head - as the judge stated. When all my husband had said was 'mainly his elbows'. Doesn't really have the same mental imagery does it?

Of course on the face of it is unlikely that that any policeman, prosecutor and defence lawyer would collaborate together to simply ‘invent’ a scenario which would ensure that my husband was found guilty, to cover up the gross incompetence of 'come in no. 1 you're sacked' when she removed two of my children from my care on a false allegation (recently admitted in court). Some scenario involving confusion on their part or the mixing up of notes from two separate cases might explain matters..........